This is a period piece but feels extremely modern. Not just because of the use of modern day music to create the soundtrack, although that is the most obvous example. The dialogue feels modern, the characters feel modern, the acting feels modern. The story kept reminding me of one of those rags-to-riches stories about rock stars or actors suddenly achieving fame and then spiraling off the deep end due to not knowing how to handle their fame. Usually I dislike an anachronistic tone for something set in a specific time period, but it was oddly effective for me this time. However, the movie stays curiously distant from the actual emotions of any of the characters, and as the credits rolled, I couldn't tell you for a second what any of the characters were actually *like*, only the public face they presented. I'm not entirely sure yet whether this distance helps or hinders the movie. I tend to like strong characterization, stories that delve into characters' minds, but in spite of the movie giving me almost none of that, I found I enjoyed it pretty well overall. So, essentially, this movie did two things I hate in movies and managed to make me kinda like the movie anyway. Impressive. 3 stars.
Best Part: Jason Schwartzman is FASCINATING in this. I really wanted to hear more of his story.
Worst Part: ...Actually, it's connected to the above. I *do* wish we'd had a little bit more to play with in terms of who the characters were. While that's a personal preference - I think the movie works fine without it - I was left wanting to know who these people were and feeling like none of my questions had been answered.
Flickchart: #954, below Minority Report and above Wordplay.
3 comments:
I thought about that emotional distance you cited while I was watching it, and I think that's really one of the things that works best here. The palace court society really was this sort of bizarre world where belonging was paramount; ergo, one would go to great lengths to not invite the kind of scrutiny that might lead to banishment. As a result, everyone was likely actually quite phony with one another because that allowed them to continue participating in this fantasy land of self-indulgence.
Moreover, from a storytelling perspective, I think Coppola really gives us a sense of how insulated was the palace itself, and Marie herself within it. She eventually forms her own clique, but even that's not really comprised of anyone you might classify as a true friend. With whom could she have a meaningful heart-to-heart conversation?
She's discouraged from applauding stage performances, a demonstration of the extent to which her outward behavior was curtailed by some truly baffling protocols. Even her own children are segregated from her in key ways; she's not even allowed to breastfeed her own infant daughter (one surmises the same was true for her son).
The modernity of the film making itself worked for me overall, including that unexpected montage of extravagance set to "I Want Candy." I was less thrilled by the masquerade ball with the rock song playing because that came across as source music and it took me out of the movie.
Hmm. The emotional distance isn't just Marie from the court - it's Marie from *us*. Does this mean Coppola is trying to make *us* feel like the court itself, deliberately distancing ourselves from everyone? Or is she making us feel like Marie, perhaps wanting to connect to someone on screen but only finding superficial connections?
It's all told from Marie Antoinette's point of view (save just a couple of very brief scenes), so I think we're meant to feel like her. We're caught up in that world, trying to navigate the protocols and the gossiping cliques, hoping to tether ourselves to some people who might bring us some comfort. The best we ever get are self-indulgent hangers-on.
The whole point of Versailles was to create a buffer for Louis XIV between him and his subjects, and even between him and the nobles who ran roughshod over Paris. We see a few times in this movie that just being a One Percenter didn't mean you were necessarily part of the in-crowd, and not being at Versailles was detrimental to one's standing at large. If you could be a second-class One Percenter, that was the way.
There's also the matter of the law of diminishing returns. Louis XIV was self-indulgent enough to construct Versailles at great expense, but he also put in enough time at the office to keep the people on his side. When he died, he was succeeded by his 5 year old grandson, Louis XV (seen here played by Rip Torn).
What did he know of proper ruling? Others did it in his name until he was old enough to assume the responsibilities himself, by which point all that mattered to him was perpetuating the court life at Versailles. What chance did Marie's husband, Louis XVI, have to ever become a proper king?
Moreover, what chance did an Austrian-born queen have to be the one to burst that carefully preserved bubble, even if she had had the insights and wherewithal to try? She was, remember, merely 14 when she was shuttled off to France. Her teen years - key years in anyone's life - were spent learning her place, which was always precarious.
Post a Comment